Trending Games | Neverwinter | Ecol Tactics Online | WildStar | Guild Wars 2
Network: Gamertube FPSguru RTSguru
| 58 posts found | |
|---|---|
|
Most people I know have been gaming for many many years and have partaken in many of the games over the last few years. Some of them Pay to play some free to play. thousands of people played LoTro when it was a sub and now when it went free many more who would have never looked at the game prior are now playing it. Many games have seen greater profit and greater freedom for players by switching to a free to play platform. back in the day it cost a ton to run servers and maintain the high speed internet to connect games online which is mainly why monthly subs were needed. Other reasons did exist but the main reason was to maintain servers and connectivity.. I've seen many people say that because GW2 is Box purchase then free after makes it not worth playing. Others are happy that its not a sub after purchase. Why do you think it makes a difference if it does not have a monthly sub? Do you feel the box price is not enough and the monthly sub is needed for some reason?
Developers and Publishers in other games have recently proven that a great game does not need a sub to maintain good support and quality updates. Anet has even proven that by offering Box price on original and for expansions that it can more then cover quality support and maintain quality server maintanence / content / expansions.
I personally have played nearly all games which have been on the market in the last 10 years. From F2P, B2P, and P2P. I know that the F2P games attract a less desirable type of player and that in the past P2P has seemed to provide higher quality content expansions as well as customer service / support and an all around better quality game.
Sharing in the questionable reasoning on no continued sub fee after box purchase makes me curious as to continued income and continued quality after release.
At the time GW was released at box price only and compared to the games on the market at its time, it was above most in quality and continued content.
The market has proven that the free to play model with cosmetic cash shop drives higher revenue then a monthly sub. So for not having a monthly sub why would that make this any less of a game or not intrigue people even more so to play it?
My thought is I'd rather see this game have a box price + cosmetic only cash shop which gives Anet MORE money then sub monthly on average so that Anet can provide further quality customer service / content expansions then stay with the sub model which has proven to be un needed to help a company produce what people think will be missing without it. When they compared monthly subs vs cash shop they found that monthly sub = $15 a month but on average players in cash shop models spent $20+ a month so with this knowledge Anets model will bring them more income.
What are your thoughts about monthly subs? needed or not, why? ** edited ** watch this then bring on the debate |
|
|
Lord.Bachus
 Elite Member
Joined: 5/14/07
I believe in life before death... So dont forget to enjoy it while you still can. |
3/08/12 4:38:04 PM#2
No monthly sub, but paying for added downloadable content seems to be much fairer.
Either you charge for the box, or you charge for playing, charging for both allways has felt over the top to me
Best MMO experiences : EQ(PvE), DAoC(PvP), WoW(total package) |
Originally posted by Lord.Bachus and probably the reason why Blizzard had extremely high revenue with this old method of charging for box + monthly sub + expansions.... talk about milking it. and on top of it they still offer items to purchase.
don't get me wrong I am all for them making money but milking your customer base and hiding behind maintaining servers / creating quality updates and expansions seems like lame justification in this day and age. |
|
|
3/08/12 4:40:29 PM#4
This video does a great job of explaining why subs are unnecessary in a very logical way. Great view, imo, and does a better job explaining than I could. :)
|
|
Originally posted by Sarielle this is exactly the video I was looking for and was going to link once I found it, THANK YOU for posting it.
I hope EVERYONE who claims subs are needed and why they are not interested in GW2 watches that video!!
WATCH IT!!!! |
|
|
3/08/12 4:47:17 PM#6
Can a GW2 fan explain to me why you have MMORPGs that sold a lot of boxes eventually shut down because they are no longer profitable if subscription fees do not matter? I ask because in comparison to sub-based games, GW2 felt cheaply made, lacked the depth and breadth of content of a P2P MMORPG, and had a very short lifespan. Just because GW2 has persistant areas outside of towns and outposts isn't enough to subside my fears that GW2 may end up the same way. |
|
|
3/08/12 4:47:36 PM#7
Originally posted by Sarielle Was about to say the same. Can't be assed to put it into my own words, when someone can do it better. But I seriously think that the subscription model is dying and new games like TERA and The Secret Word will definitely go F2P in a year or 2 after release. Especially if GW2 becomes financially successful, making the B2P model seem more viable for MMOs.
|
|
|
3/08/12 4:49:12 PM#8
Originally posted by SuperXero89 You've either mixed up your numbers. [Mod Edit]
|
|
|
3/08/12 4:52:29 PM#9
Originally posted by Master10K
|
|
|
3/08/12 4:54:05 PM#10
Subs were originally set because the bandwidth was expensive when MMO's hit our streets, now they cost next to nothing. Some Developers keep them as a money spinner and nothing more. Most popular MMO's have even sold extra content on top of their subscription model, because they know consumers will fork out for their favourite game. Maybe Anet have taken the moral high ground and believe its unjust to charge for both subs and content, Its also a good way to pull in punters to play their game as they won't be competing for players. You buy the box and play as and when you feel like it and dont feel that you are forced to play because you just spent money to play for the month. If I was to pay subs and it was set at £9 a month then 6 months later a content expansion was released at say £25, that be £79 I would of layed out, not paying subs and they release content, even if it cost £40, I already have saved £39. For me that makes a whole lot better sense than the former. Personally I think its a no brainer.  My XIVPad: [video]http://xivpads.com?13754614[/video] |
|
Originally posted by SuperXero89 miss type? Watch that video which was linked.
The MMORPG's that sold a lot of boxes eventually did not shut down because of a lack of sub fee. No game has ever shut down because it didn't have a sub fee ever. When a Game Dev or Publisher states "we are closing our doors because it is no longer profitable" tells you one of two things. They didn't manage their profits well enough or that the assumption of their box sells were higher then reality. GW1 at launch compared to WoW at launch, GW1 was without a doubt better quality when it took WoW months if not nearly a year to iron out wrinkles.
If sub fee's were required to maintain a great game then console games would not be profitable but we all know that they are extremely profitable especially FPS games such as COD or BF which work on a box price and expasion price and still offer awesome games. Same logic and reasoning can be used on MMORPGS who have a box price and expasion price no subs are needed or required.
I'm personally not a fan of GW but sub fee's have only proved useful to me in one aspect it kept out the majority of low lifes that are found in F2P games. |
|
|
3/08/12 4:57:26 PM#12
Originally posted by SuperXero89 No, not everyone who objects to your views is being touchy, or otherwise defensive. Actually in this case it seems like you're refereing to bad experiences in Guild Wars 1 half the time. The rest was pure conjecture. Stuff you simply made up. Especially love how you refer to GW2 in past tense, as if you've bought it or something.
|
|
|
3/08/12 4:58:10 PM#13
Originally posted by SuperXero89 He was refering to the number 1 and the number 2, 1, GW1 wasnt an MMO 2 GW2 hasnt been released yet. 3 GW1 is very successful in its own right, even if you didnt like it. and the servers are still busy. My XIVPad: [video]http://xivpads.com?13754614[/video] |
|
|
Xzen
 Apprentice Member
Joined: 5/01/06
A sword is never a killer, it is a tool in the killer's hands. |
3/08/12 4:59:22 PM#14
Subs are not needed. I think the buisness model Anet has chosen will work just fine. |
|
3/08/12 5:01:55 PM#15
Originally posted by SuperXero89 you're just spreading misinformation, how exactly is guild wars 2 cheaply made? and compared to what mmo? |
|
|
3/08/12 5:03:07 PM#16
Originally posted by nerovipus32 Well compared to SW:TOR anything is cheap. Maybe that's what he was getting at.
|
|
|
3/08/12 5:05:12 PM#17
guild wars a game with no sub has lasted longer than alot of mmo's that do have subs. guild wars 2 will be the final nail in the coffin of p2p mmo's, |
|
|
3/08/12 5:05:38 PM#18
Originally posted by Master10K
The conjecture was all on your behalf. GW1 was a great game, but it is not a game that I felt deserved a subscription fee because it was not of the same quality as a game that has one. Just to say what pops into my head, when I played, the graphics were nice, but the gameworld didn't allow for much interaction (can't swim, can't open doors and thus can't explore buildings) animations were stiff, everyone looked the same, there wasn't a lot of draw to the game after having raised a character to level 20 aside from HoH PvP and GvG. GW1 is entirely irrelevant. It hasn't had a major content update in close to 5 years, pick up PvP is absolutely dead, and it is pretty much only still played by diehard fans. If you bring up seeing several players around in outposts, lets not forget the game only has a single server. |
|
|
3/08/12 5:06:24 PM#19
Originally posted by Master10K
|
|
|
3/08/12 5:08:40 PM#20
Originally posted by nerovipus32 |
|
.jpg)
Friends: vgchartz.com
Not a member? You can still subscribe to our newsletters and daily updates here!
May 24, 2013 12:16 PM
- Page Created in 0.484 seconds -
